Oh, to be a fly on that wall. I'm sure I'd love it.
I wish her a good run and become the first female president of the USA.
Gods I cannot wait for her to lose, she’s a POS through and through, Dems need a better candidate.
I think she's an awful choice tactically and have little hope for what her administration would do - but I'll still vote for her if her name is on the ticket.
But until that day there is no reason not to argue for someone better.
And in that we're in absolute agreement!
I disagree.
There are millions of voters who, for reasons I will never understand, are still undecided. At some point, fighting over your candidate doesn't inspire outsiders as to your party's vision for governance. You'll never sell a message of "We're the party that will defeat fascism!" if half your efforts are spent essentially rehashing the primary. Seriously, the Dems right now look like a low budget version of Spartacus.
Biden, whether through serious belief or the obstinance that comes from advanced age, is not going to step aside. Continuing to publicly fight that, rather than unite behind a single party-wide message, only makes the Dems look weak.
And no, I'm not saying Biden shouldn't step aside or that he is the best candidate. But party unity is the key to defeating the GOP and if Biden won't withdraw, we work with that.
Seriously! 4 weeks of plenty of time
I mean, we Americans are certainly well-known for our quick critical-thinking skills, our ability to be reasonable and of course our willingness to compromise for the greater good.
Hell, the day before the election is just as good - especially if you don't actually care about winning and/or enacting critical policies/legislation we need
Exactly. Briton just had an entire election in 6 weeks!
Imagine, only 6 weeks for an entire campaign 'season'!
Glorious
Sorry, bro. I was being sarcastic. As much as I'd love what you're putting down I absolutely do not think Americans are capable of anything like that
Most Americans can barely read. That's where we're at, over here
Then again, Britain is how many times smaller than the USA with how many times less electors and how many times less subdivisions in the country?
India is roughly a billion people; The largest democracy in the world. I think they get it all done in 3 months. They also just had an election this year.
The US is kinda unique, having years long presedental campaigns. It's crazy, and complety, unnecessarily, excessive.
There's no reason for it, beyond driving donations for parties, and ratings for news networks.
But it's the insanity we have. The insanity we've gotten used to.
Such as?
Almost anyone. Preferably someone I've never heard of.
An outsider. Someone on the margins of society who doesn’t see things like we do, like a homeless person.
You got my vote!
The Roman Republic would sometimes temporarily appoint a dictator in times of need.
Her losing means Trump winning which would be about a million times worse
Gods I cannot wait for her to lose, she’s a POS through and through
I find that in general when people say shit like this, without elaborating, they generally don't have a solid idea why they think that. Is that the case for you or do you have actual reasons for saying this?
Not OP here and I'll vote for her in the election 100% but the concerns I've seen raised most often are:
She was a cop and her history reflects the history of being a cop. Being a prosecutor means that you're pressuring innocent people into jail time plea deals and using cops to back up your arguments all the time. She's the epitome of back the blue.
That makes her a great choice against the "Law and Order" fascist felon at least.
... but the concerns I’ve seen raised most often are:
Concern, singular. It's the same issue over and over again, and especially in Harris' case... I mean both Clintons were once opposed to gay marriage, which is a real deal breaker for me. I didn't hold that one single issue against Hillary, I looked at the totality of her neo-liberal/con background before deciding I couldn't support her.
And... Joe Biden and just about every other congress critter has a terrible history of police support too. You know what? That's the price they pay for getting votes. I don't agree with it, I think it stinks as much as pigs in general, but it's a price I'm willing to accept to get everything else and not get a Republican administration.
I'm looking for reasons that make Harris unelectable. TBH, her background throwing people in jail for minor drug offenses ups her appeal with a lot of voters.
why would you hope that? (not a US resident)
She began on a progressive platform with a side of identity politics. She sold out her progressive platform during the campaign to position herself for, then secure the VP nomination.
But, we don't need specifics to be certain any given US federal politician is absolute trash. They're all elected on corporate money.
Ideologically, she’s a corporate shill that incarcerated thousands of people for minor posessions and then claimed to be against such policies while never offering any amnesty or apology. Politically I have major disagreeances with both parties platforms. Socially, I think Harris leads to some Republican bullshit scheme.
Also, to everyone that keeps trying to gaslight America. EVERYONE HATES HARRIS, SHE WILL DRIVE AWAY ON THE FENCE VOTERS AND YOUNGER APATHETIC VOTERS.
She did her job and applied the law as it was, she wasn't the one who had the power to change those laws, the people chose to elect people who didn't change them.
She could have gotten a different job that didn't involve ruining lives over plants.
Prosecutors have discretion about who they charge, and what sentence they seek.
So you are eager for Trump to win, then.
sigh
I’m eager for dems to see we won’t put up with trash anymore. No more slightly better republicans, we deserve better.
The unfortunate truth is that that's not an option. We get either a Republican, or a slightly better Republican. We need to put in a lot of groundwork to open the doors for any other options, and we're just not there yet.
So, Trump then.
It’s either Trump, slightly older Trump, or Woman Trump, I’ll just write in Bernie.
The fact that you’re both-sides-ing this is enough for me to bow out. Biden and Harris are nowhere near the level of evil that Trump is. Enjoy wasting your vote. I’m out.
They’re all pieces of shit, you don’t come to lead a political party without being one. But we’ve still got to pick which is the least smelly piece of shit of the bunch.
enlight me on the reasons for this conclusion, idk much about her
Ideologically, she’s a corporate shill that incarcerated thousands of people for minor posessions and then claimed to be against such policies while never offering any amnesty or apology. Politically I have major disagreeances with both parties platforms. Socially, I think Harris leads to some Republican bullshit scheme.
Also, to everyone that keeps trying to gaslight America. EVERYONE HATES HARRIS, SHE WILL DRIVE AWAY ON THE FENCE VOTERS AND YOUNGER APATHETIC VOTERS.
Ah, so you sorta tried to answer this question. But it boils down to "because things", mainly. Or rather ONE thing exactly. I'd bet that is the sum total of your actual knowledge of Harris' history.
Like take this sentence: "Socially, I think Harris leads to some Republican bullshit scheme."
What? What does that actually mean?
Harris cannot win, Harris will not win this election. If she is the nominated candidate all it leads to is Republican bullshit and a win.
Harris cannot win, Harris will not win this election. If she is the nominated candidate all it leads to is Republican bullshit and a win.
"Because reasons"
Yes, because of many reasons, with the big one being she’s incredibly umpopular and will drive people away.
Yes but WHAT REASONS SPECIFICALLY?
Y'all so far are just repeating the same thing assuming nobody will notice that "reasons" is so far only one "reason" and not a great one at that. Somebody remind me the name of this cognitive error....
I’ve said it in ither comments on this thread I thought this was part of those.
Bad polling, handling of the border, how she ran the bay area when it came to marijuana charges and cases, perceived foreign policy goals especially in relation to Israel, bad public image towards young people (pokemon go to the polls energy) and a subpar debate record. From what I remeber she was solidly losing until the fly landed on Pence and he got memed to death.
In the end she will just be women trump or women biden, I.e more of the exact same.
"perceived foreign policy goals"
"how she ran the bay area"
"bad public image"
"subpar debate record"
So basically you don't have specifics but just gross generalizations. So far that's all anyone has come up with and it just gets repeated as though somehow saying it with more words makes it more than "because reasons". It doesn't.
How about some context and maybe even a few specifics?
Harris on Israel: She's criticized Israel and made it clear Israel's behavior would not be without consequences. Example.
"ran the bay area": Honestly this is just kind of nonsense. Did you mean her reputation around drug crimes? What about all the other stuff like the Back on Track initiative? She helped pass legislation banning the gay panic defense. And efforts to change state policies around transgender medical treatment for prisoners (this is nuanced because she argued in line with the law but didn't agree and worked to change it). Harris pushed hard agains the family separation policy under Trump, and was the first to demand Nielsen's resignation. Just a tiny random sample of achievements, which are a lot more than you might think.
"bad public image": What does this even mean given that the same could be argued for Trump and Biden? Or the "bad public image" of politicians in general? I'd argue that a lot of this "bad public image" has to do with people like you generalizing in vague ways and, to be blunt, remaining ignorant of the facts.
subpar debate record: What, like one? I know other people who flubbed debates. Obama, for example. It happens and while you could sort of argue that degrades her electability slightly you cannot argue that it points to an inability to be president.
My entire point here is that there is a LOT more to Harris than vague half-remembered generalizations that too often seem to be all people put forward. It's really worth looking at her record in more detail. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good rundown. And of course On The Issues has the usual handy summary.
I think Biden has a better chance than her, and if he's voted in she's the back up anyways.
As far as backups go, she’s far from the worst. On that note, what would America do if Biden were re-elected and simply stepped down immediately? Would America lament the second term that never was or would they simply say “oh, weird. Whatever.” Or would they celebrate fresher blood finally finding its way into the mix? I know republicans would attempt to block and/or complain about everything, but the reasonables- how would they react?
On that note, what would America do if Biden were re-elected and simply stepped down immediately?
I know republicans would attempt to block and/or complain about everything, but the reasonables- how would they react?
Assuming the Republicans still hold the House, they would ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS!
Sure, President Harris would still be a Democrat and control the Executive branch, but her new VP would be voted in by the House of Representatives. They'd try to put Trump in as VP. Having Trump (even as the junior in the Executive Branch) would give him access and power to spoil President Harris's agenda.
Alternatively, again assuming Republicans keep the house, they could make Trump the Speaker of the House.
"The Constitution does not explicitly require the speaker to be an incumbent member of the House of Representatives, although every speaker thus far has been, and as a member the speaker also represents their district and retains the right to vote." source
I hate these two possible scenarios of VP or Speaker.
On that note, what would America do if Biden were re-elected and simply stepped down immediately?
It's so wild to me that one of your two political parties is actively trying to dismantle your democracy and everyone continues on as if it's normal.
You seem to think the other hasn't been working towards the same goal for the past 50 years at the best of corporations, just less obvious about it. The current Dems are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. That's why all the Republicans fight about is usually social issues, they're both working towards whatever corporations want done with the money most of the time.
Dude, Biden tried to forgive like $140 billion in student loans and invested like a trillion dollars into infrastructure and energy programs with the IRA
You're not entirely wrong that the DNC is heavily influenced by wealthy corporations/donors, but c'mon man. Get a grip! You sound ridiculous with that both sides nonsense
Doing good things a few times doesn't make up for all the other neoliberal corporate bullshit you seem to want to ignore happened.
Looks like providing a carrot once in a while works well at making people forget.
Are you trying to suggest not voting for one of the only two political parties? Third party candidates can't win in the US
If you are, how old are you and how long have you been paying attention to American politics? I'm genuinely curious
Are you trying to suggest not voting for one of the only two political parties?
I never even got close to suggesting that. I just pointed out the DNC has been steering the party in the same direction as the Republicans for the past 50 years. Shifting the entire political spectrum of the US so far to the right that we're literally looking at half of the country outright endorsing an overt a Fascist Authoritarian takeover.
They've allowed this shift while claiming that because they're socially liberal that they aren't actually helping shift us towards the situation we're in now. They don't actually do anything to change when they lose elections because they know the electoral system inevitably results in 2 parties and their corporate donors don't really care either, since both parties are in their pocket. The only real difference between the two is social policies and the occasional carrot given to "prove" they care so the citizens don't actually revolt against the party and replace them all.
Our system is fucked, but it's what we have to work within, this election options are pretty clear cut unless you're a fucking idiot. It's either maintaining at minimum the current poor status quo, or an overt Fascist Authoritarian takeover. And the DNC knows that, it's why they have pushed through whoever the fuck they want for the past several elections, regardless of what initial primaries looked like. As soon as Hilary announced her candidacy the DNC did everything in their power to ensure she was the nominee, trying to make it superficially look like the people actually had a choice while standing in the way of every other candidate. Dem leadership relies on voters falling in line because the alternative is clear Fascism, but they keep showing that they don't actually care once elected.
Don't get me wrong, there are a few Dems that seem to actually care and try to work the way the system is intended, but they never make it anywhere in the party, and when they begin to get a following, leadership gets in the way to prevent them actually accomplishing anything truly worthwhile.
The DNC is probably worse than the RNC because of it, at least the Republicans are clear about their shitty intentions and rally behind that. Instead, the Dems attack and undermine each other as if the Republicans and their fascist threat didn't exist.
I'm with you 1000% on pretty much everything except your last paragraph. But, let's slow down.
This started with someone saying, 'choosing who to vote for shouldn't be a difficult decision.' You replied saying, 'actually Dems/the DNC sucks.' Can you see how in the context of that conversation, it might seem like you're trying to respond and even refute what the previous commenter said (i.e. it actually should, or could, legitimately be a difficult decision)? Cmiiw, but I think you were just trying to hijack/insert your point into the conversation and that's totally fine! But you need to have work it in somehow or else you're just being disrespectful of them and ultimately others in the forum. Gotta have a bit of rizz, you know. Even saying something like, 'I totally agree, but tbf Biden sucks and...' or 'while I dont disagree...' would help.
The DNC is probably worse than the RNC because of it, at least the Republicans are clear about their shitty intentions and rally behind that. Instead, the Dems attack and undermine each other as if the Republicans and their fascist threat didn't exist.
Now, to address this. You say this like Rs/the RNC is honest to their voters. Trump is literally lying to them in nearly every sentence he makes. You really need to take a step back and try to see the nuance (literally always in everything).
Middle America has absolutely been shafted by both parties for decades while investments in infrastructure and whatnot have obviously been focused on cities. This makes sense, they literally don't like cities. Still, they're struggling and we, as a nation, have abandoned them. This video honestly breaks my heart. It shows how each president has made promises they either knew or should've known they couldn't keep.
Where does that leave us? Well, you might say no one really has a choice because both parties suck. I'd say, well, before the tea party, Republicans weren't so crazy. They legit took over the party that most aligned with theirs. Can you say we've done the same? If I'm honest, I won't even register as a Dem because I'm kinda with you. But surely we see how that's a bit of a problem if we want to force the DNC to take us seriously and to ultimately bend to our will.
Alright this got too long. Basically, there's lots of unhappy Americans being lied to. And some are dumber than others. One party is clearly lying more and unfortunately it's paying off bigly.
You guys need to get over this knee jerk reaction that any criticism of the "moderate" party is an existential threat that will move the needle over to the "death" party. The person you're replying to didn't say anything remotely like what you're suggesting.
Yes your republicans are materially worse when they're in power, and you should do whatever you can to keep them out (I'm no accelerationist) including voting for their opposition.
But I honestly think that yes both sides do in part contribute to this fall into fascism. Obviously I'm not saying that there are no progressive elements among the democrats, but y'all need to be able to have these conversations about what to do about the chuds in the democratic party, in addition to voting.
Did you see my last response to them? It addresses what you're saying, I think
I don't disagree with you or then. However, within the context of what's being said what are they trying to do? At best, they're hijacking the convo when it's not really relevant
(P.S. basing this on memory of the convo, didn't go back and reread everything)
I see what you're saying. Yeah we're all three on the same page, but bad actors out there trying to get people not to vote muddy the waters.
No no. House doesn't get to nominate/choose the VP. Harris would choose a VP then the House would have to vote to approve them or not, like the Senate does with SCOTUS nominees. So the worst a Repub-controlled House could do (and they would) is prevent her from filling the VP slot at all.
That's why: 1) very important Dems get the House back in this election. Biden may not hand it over immediately but it could happen at any time during the term. 2) It's probably better to make her the nominee now so she can choose a VP to run with and avoid that issue.
Realistically, if Biden were re-elected then Democrats would almost certainly win the handful of seats needed to control the House.
I think a Trump VP is inconceivable - if it came down to that Harris would likely just continuously nominate random democrats and leave the position vacant.
At which point political assassination becomes a real concern as the next in line is Mike Johnson.
Or she could use the presidential immunity and make sure that Trump can't be nominated in that position 🤷
It would take Harris to Nominate him as vice, it would instead be a deadlock of never a vice, and whatever.
I don't think he's capable of making up the difference.
She has higher potential. But she could also do worse, which doesn't really matter.
Vice President Kamala Harris tried to buck up the Democratic Party’s biggest donors on Friday, telling about 300 of them that there was little to worry about in President Biden’s campaign.
Ms. Harris spoke to the group at a time of extraordinary turmoil among Democrats, with many hoping that she will replace Mr. Biden as the party’s nominee. But several listeners said they found the meeting overall to be of little value and even, at times, condescending, believing that the message ignored donors’ legitimate concerns about the Biden-led ticket.
Ms. Harris, of course, is in a delicate position: She must demonstrate loyalty to her boss but also be prepared to jump immediately to the top of the Democratic ticket if Mr. Biden were to withdraw.
But several listeners said they found the meeting overall to be of little value and even, at times, condescending...
Yeah no shit. Harris bombed out of the 2020 run before Iowa because that's just who she is. Got 0 rizz. Biden should have talked Abrams into being VP 4 years ago.
The NYT that has a personal vendetta against Biden for reasons that Biden stans can never articulate?
It would be fucking hilarious if they pushed out Kamala for Hilary.
"We realized the reason voters want Biden to step down is because Harris is his running mate. So we replaced her with the only Democrat in existence less popular than Biden, and the only person in existence to have lost to the Toupee in an election: Hillary Clinton. It's her turn." - Dem leadership.
God that whole rhetoric pissed me off to no end, when they shoved Bernie aside because it was ‘her turn’. The level of arrogance needed to even think that, let alone push it as an argument on voters…
While I’m certainly not downplaying her actual political credits - she has experience in all levels of government - the presidency is not an ‘it’s my turn now’ position. That soured a lot of voters on her as a candidate.
‘It’s my turn’ is only an argument if you’re waiting in line at Disneyland.
Was the saying "it's her turn" always referring specifically to Hillary? I always processed "it's her turn" to just refer to a woman president in general, and giving the environment, that just happened to be Hillary. Still not MUCH better, but at least we're saying it's a collectives turn, not a single individual person.
Edit: literally just asking a simple question and posing a rhetorical in response to my memories around the event. Not trying to start anything.
Thank you for the information. I didn't remember it being specifically tied to her, with it being 8 years ago and all hahah
A lot has certainly happened since then, if nothing else. It's not like her campaign was very smartly done on almost any level. It sucks, because the end result could have been so much better than what you got instead.
Technically, she got more votes (edit due to being unclear: than Trump, in 2016). And not by a little, nearly 3 million people more voted for her over orange anti-republic anti-democracy man. But the voting system is unrepresentative, so it didn’t matter.
Why is everyone acting as if she’s an heir or something? All delegates to the convention have already been elected. If Biden steps down, they can vote for whoever, and Dem party rules state that the superdelegates can’t jump in until the 2nd vote if no one wins the first.
I heard somewhere that all the money raised for the Biden/Harris campaign would stay with Harris if she ran for president.
I don't know if that's true, or what would happen to the money if they both drop out but I heard someone say that.
What Happens to Biden's Campaign Money if He Drops Out?
It depends on who the new Democratic nominee is, says Saurav Ghosh, the director of federal campaign finance reform at the Campaign Legal Center.
The simplest option from a campaign finance standpoint would be to nominate Vice President Kamala Harris, because “if Harris remains on the ticket, as either the presidential or vice-presidential candidate, the new ticket would maintain access to all the funds in the campaign committee,” says Ghosh.
This is “[b]ecause Biden and Vice President Harris share a campaign committee,” Ghosh says, as both names appear on Biden’s statement of candidacy and statement of organization to the Federal Election Commission.
However, if a new Democratic ticket did not include Biden or Harris, then things would become “more complicated,” Ghosh said.
Since $2,000 is the limit to transfer money between federal campaign committees per election cycle, Ghosh said, the Biden campaign couldn’t legally contribute all of its campaign money to a new candidate.
Instead, “Biden’s campaign would have to offer to refund the money to donors, who could then contribute to the new candidate’s campaign,” or “transfer an unlimited amount to the DNC, which could then spend the money supporting the new presidential nominee, and up to $32.3 million of that spending could be coordinated with the new nominee,” said Ghosh.
This is absolutely not true. The DNC can do whatever the fuck they want with presidential campaign money. It's a donation to a private organization. There's no contract unless a big donor insists.
That's an oversimplification. The Biden campaign has around $240 million on hand. If Harris becomes the presidential nominee, her campaign inherits the entire $240 mil.
If another person becomes the nominee, the Biden campaign could refund contributions so they can be sent to the new campaign directly. Otherwise, they are permitted to transfer as much as they want to the DNC.
But the DNC can't spend the money however they like. They can spend an unlimited amount supporting the new candidate independently (running ads, oppo research, etc), but there is a limit to how much they can spend in coordination with the campaign. For example, if they rent a venue for the candidate, that must be coordinated with the campaign and therefore counts towards coordinated expenditures. The coordinated expenditure limit per presidential cycle is $32.3 million.
And if they want to give directly to the campaign, that is even more limited. A political committee can only give $5,000 dollars per campaign per election cycle. Anything more than that would have to go to some kind of Super PAC which also has limits in what it can do in direct coordination with a campaign (though it gets fuzzier because Super PACs are tantamount to political money laundering in my opinion).
So no, if the DNC gets the money, they can't just give it to whatever campaign they like. The limitations are not due to any contractual obligation when donating the funds, but rather US political rules on how presidential campaigns are allowed to receive money.
If another person becomes the nominee, the Biden campaign could refund contributions so they can be sent to the new campaign directly.
Hmm.
That'd have to happen extremely quickly. If they don't have some kind of mechanism already in place for getting approval from the donor, it seems likely to me that they wouldn't have time to set something up.
The US typically runs fairly long campaigns, the whole election year. Not all countries work like that. IIRC, the UK does a (limited) three month campaign cycle. But even by those standards, this is really short. There are about three-and-a-half months left before the election. They haven't even selected an alternative, much less had someone spend the money to put together a campaign, much less actually embark on it.
Also, US campaigns are very large compared to most countries. I don't know what total spending is like this time around, but I remember that when Trump ran against Hillary in 2016, each spent about $1 billion in their campaign. If you have to do that, you'd have to select someone, set up and complete all the fund transfer stuff, pay someone to devise a campaign, and then implement the campaign -- and this is on the order of a billion-dollar project -- in about a hundred days.
I agree. As much as I want to see an open debate between potential candidates, narrowing it down to a single alternative and have a vote whether to switch to that person or stay with Biden... the financial side makes that idea seem unrealistic.
I think the most viable option is to have Biden step down and Harris step up. As much as Kamala Harris is not my favorite politician, I think we all understand this is not about having someone we like in the White House, it's about ensuring someone with plans to dismantle democracy does not get the chance to bring those plans to fruition.
I'm with you, but can't they just donate it to a super PAC? Isn't that basically their whole point - to launder campaign contributions?
The red tape Super PACs get around concerns how much money can be received. While a presidential campaign can only receive $3,300 from an individual, and a traditional PAC can receive up to $5,000, a Super PAC can receive unlimited donations from both individuals and corporations. That's the money laundering part - it allows the super rich to put unlimited money toward a political cause even though the system was originally designed to prevent this.
But the official name for Super PACs is "Independent-expenditure-only political committee". So, while they are allowed to receive unlimited funds, they cannot give it to a campaign or do any spending in coordination with a campaign (though how many Super PACs strictly follow the no coordination rule is hard to quantify).
Essentially, the DNC giving the money to a Super PAC would be similar to if they kept the money and did the independent political expenditures themselves. The difference being that they would lose control over what independent expenditures the money goes towards.
I wondered...
Yet, you never asked.
I just did. The way to get the correct answer on the internet is psot the wrong answer.
The best way to facilitate the spread of misinformation, THE critical war which humans are loosing at an increasingly fast rate, is to post the wrong answer on the internet. And, you got a low quality answer because it's coming also with emotion.
It's a cute meme. But, you're not serving yourself or the community as well as you could if you simply frame it as a question.
As an example here's what was missing from the higher quality answer you deserved:
Donations can be made to candidates. But, the vast majority is made to the national committees, then allocated to presidential and down ballot campaigns. This is one way individual candidates are held ideologically hostage to the changing whims of corporations.
In the future please just ask questions. We don't need a community for that on Lemmy... yet.
I couched my comment with the caveat that it was unsubstantiated and it then generated a lot of discussion. Your comment itself is unsubstantiated and really just makes you sound like a cob. Is money donated to a party theirs to use anyway they want? The answer appears to be kinda, maybe, but it depends.
Why is everyone acting as if she’s an heir or something?
Because these are Democrats, and no one expects them to have primaries anymore.
It's been kind of maddening, seeing the discourse about her electability go from zero to hero. US politics makes no sense outside of corporate and wealthy circles. She is way more electable than Biden.
There are, potentially valid, concerns that her being brown, a prosecutor, and a her makes her less electable than the ancient white man nobody likes. I think people for whom this is a problem were never going to vote dem anyway, but I can see what they perceive the problem is.
Some people are gonna vote D/R no matter what, some will never vote D/R. The problem at hand is not those, is taking the people that could vote D 'off their seats' and go cast that vote. Biden's not moving anyone, which could seriously result in losing the election, and I think Harris on top of not moving these could make the people that have a problem with her being a woman of color or a prosecutor go vote for Trump. The perceive problem is a real concern.
I wouldn't listen to any network or pundit that flip flops that noticeably
Where are you seeing that kind of drastic shift?
We should update our currency "enabling the worst of us". We deserve what we get at this point.
Doesn’t matter. The “far left” aren’t voting for her either.
"Far left" here, we generally understand the need to vote blue no matter who in this election. It's pretty obvious.
Then you’re not the “far left” I’m taking about. There’s a Far Left, which are legit- and the “far left” which are MAGA trolls trying to convince people not to vote.
Please. You pretend that any criticism from the left is from maga trolls.
They both need to step aside, it's better to have an unknown than a known candidate that people don't like.
Can you show an election where that strategy has worked this late in the game?
Yea, pretty much every election up here in Canada.
I'm amazed that Americans think four months "is like literally no time".
It'd take an ad spend but the DNC could name recognition pretty much anyone at this point.
The elections are short, but we've known the candidates a long time. De Dluca was elected leader shortly before the election and no one knew who he was and he totally tanked.
*see, I even got his name wrong. Del Duca.
Doug got in to replace Patrick Brown pretty late in the game after CTV reported that Brown was a creep with young (but later turned out to be legal age) women at bars in Barrie and a snap leadership race stuck us with him. I just looked it up again and he was leader for about three months before the Provincial election, Del Duca was around for two years.
Name recognition with Doug was incredibly high. To this day, who the hell is Del Duca anyway?
Mayor of Vaughan but I get your point
You don't elect a chief executive in Canada the way we do in the U.S.
You can't compare a parliamentary election to our constitutional presidential republic's elections.
*4 weeks, bud
The convention is in 4 weeks. Mail-in-ballots get sent out at the end of September.
There's a lot of misinformation being shared due to the lack of proper context. Yes, the election is in November but it's not that simple
Honestly, if we ever think something is simple, we should pretty much assume we don't know wtf we're talking about
Can you show an election where that strategy has worked this late in the game?
To my knowledge the President and vice President haven't stepped down from a political campaign. However, I can point to a situation in which a vice president took over for an unpopular president and lost. That would be Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
Additionally, just based on logic alone, it is ridiculous to insinuate that it wouldn't be better to have an unknown candidate than a disliked candidate.
How could it be better to have a candidate that voters do not like, over a candidate that they haven't come to an opinion on yet?
but they could be anyone, even worse candidate!
That would be tough, at this point in the calendar the only incumbent presidential candidates with a lower net job approval than Joe Biden were George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter. Both of whom lost the election. Trump was a few points better in 2020, he also lost.
can you show an election where somebody in the polling position of biden has come back to win it?
non-us election cycles are shorter than the time that's left i don't think it's an impossible hurdle
I don't have to show evidence for a claim I did not make.
You, however, made this claim: it’s better to have an unknown than a known candidate that people don’t like.
Can you back it up with evidence or not?
i think it's weird that you think you're allowed to infer claims from my position but that i'm not allowed to infer claims from yours
I didn't infer anything. You made a direct claim that you aren't backing up. I quoted it. I have made no claims.
you didn't quote anything?
please could you quote the exact words you believe i used to express "it’s better to have an unknown than a known candidate that people don’t like."?
thank you
that was the original statement Flying Squid was replying to before you joined in the thread, Squid just didn't seem to notice that you're not the same commenter.
Fuck off, sea lion.
i feel like i'm taking crazy pills
somebody tells me they've quoted my words, and they haven't, and i ask them to clarify, and i'm sealioning?
no, they're just full of shit
what are you talking about?
I think there may be some confusion on Flying Squid's part about who they're questioning. I believe (and hopefully, I'm reading this correctly) Flying Squid is looking for clarification from Bostonbananarama and you just happened to chime in with a related point? This Crowdstrike B.S. got e'erybody fucked up on no-change Friday.
the commenter you're replying to now isn't the one who made that claim, and for some reason they aren't speaking up to clarify that about themselves.
Maybe they flushed and went back to work. Or sleep. Or are back country camping.
flushed and went back to work.
😅
Sorry for having other things going on, it won't happen again.
can you show an election
2016
Its not, last time we did this Reagan won by a fucking landslide. I am very nervous but voting D.
In 1980, Reagan beat an unpopular incumbent, Carter, by a huge margin. In 1984, Reagan was the incumbent and crushed Walter Mondale. I'm not sure which one is the, "last time we did this" though.
If anything, Reagan shows us that unpopular incumbents do not have a high likelihood of reelection.
So you didn't mean Reagan, you meant Nixon. But Nixon was the incumbent and at this point in the calendar had 58% job approval (Biden: 38.5%) and a net job approval of 26.9% (Biden: -17.7%). At this point in the calendar, Nixon was 44.6% higher in net job approval. Do you really think that's analogous?
What I mean is this is probably a bad idea. We did something similar and it was bad. But go for it. I'm voting D no matter who.
I wonder if we would get this headline if the coup failed...
Zero respect
I remember when Rolling Stone was a magazine only for music haha
So before it was a magazine? Because this is issue 1 and there's a reason there's a photo of John Lennon dressed as a soldier in an anti-war film on the front page of its inaugural issue in 1967.
Still, it was music/musician focused.
And it is now.
Here's the front page of their website.
Now it is both. You can do both.
Is Ashlee Simpson twenty or is her album twenty years old?
Let me check to see if I give a shit. I may be some time.
Okay, I’ll just hold my breath while I wait for an answer.
I'd still bang her and her goddamn insane thicc sister lol
Oh, to be a fly on that wall. I'm sure I'd love it.
I wish her a good run and become the first female president of the USA.
Gods I cannot wait for her to lose, she’s a POS through and through, Dems need a better candidate.
I think she's an awful choice tactically and have little hope for what her administration would do - but I'll still vote for her if her name is on the ticket.
But until that day there is no reason not to argue for someone better.
And in that we're in absolute agreement!
I disagree.
There are millions of voters who, for reasons I will never understand, are still undecided. At some point, fighting over your candidate doesn't inspire outsiders as to your party's vision for governance. You'll never sell a message of "We're the party that will defeat fascism!" if half your efforts are spent essentially rehashing the primary. Seriously, the Dems right now look like a low budget version of Spartacus.
Biden, whether through serious belief or the obstinance that comes from advanced age, is not going to step aside. Continuing to publicly fight that, rather than unite behind a single party-wide message, only makes the Dems look weak.
And no, I'm not saying Biden shouldn't step aside or that he is the best candidate. But party unity is the key to defeating the GOP and if Biden won't withdraw, we work with that.
Seriously! 4 weeks of plenty of time
I mean, we Americans are certainly well-known for our quick critical-thinking skills, our ability to be reasonable and of course our willingness to compromise for the greater good.
Hell, the day before the election is just as good - especially if you don't actually care about winning and/or enacting critical policies/legislation we need
Exactly. Briton just had an entire election in 6 weeks!
Imagine, only 6 weeks for an entire campaign 'season'!
Glorious
Sorry, bro. I was being sarcastic. As much as I'd love what you're putting down I absolutely do not think Americans are capable of anything like that
Most Americans can barely read. That's where we're at, over here
Then again, Britain is how many times smaller than the USA with how many times less electors and how many times less subdivisions in the country?
India is roughly a billion people; The largest democracy in the world. I think they get it all done in 3 months. They also just had an election this year.
The US is kinda unique, having years long presedental campaigns. It's crazy, and complety, unnecessarily, excessive.
There's no reason for it, beyond driving donations for parties, and ratings for news networks.
But it's the insanity we have. The insanity we've gotten used to.
Such as?
Almost anyone. Preferably someone I've never heard of.
An outsider. Someone on the margins of society who doesn’t see things like we do, like a homeless person.
You got my vote!
The Roman Republic would sometimes temporarily appoint a dictator in times of need.
Her losing means Trump winning which would be about a million times worse
I find that in general when people say shit like this, without elaborating, they generally don't have a solid idea why they think that. Is that the case for you or do you have actual reasons for saying this?
Not OP here and I'll vote for her in the election 100% but the concerns I've seen raised most often are:
She was a cop and her history reflects the history of being a cop. Being a prosecutor means that you're pressuring innocent people into jail time plea deals and using cops to back up your arguments all the time. She's the epitome of back the blue.
That makes her a great choice against the "Law and Order" fascist felon at least.
Concern, singular. It's the same issue over and over again, and especially in Harris' case... I mean both Clintons were once opposed to gay marriage, which is a real deal breaker for me. I didn't hold that one single issue against Hillary, I looked at the totality of her neo-liberal/con background before deciding I couldn't support her.
And... Joe Biden and just about every other congress critter has a terrible history of police support too. You know what? That's the price they pay for getting votes. I don't agree with it, I think it stinks as much as pigs in general, but it's a price I'm willing to accept to get everything else and not get a Republican administration.
I'm looking for reasons that make Harris unelectable. TBH, her background throwing people in jail for minor drug offenses ups her appeal with a lot of voters.
why would you hope that? (not a US resident)
She began on a progressive platform with a side of identity politics. She sold out her progressive platform during the campaign to position herself for, then secure the VP nomination.
But, we don't need specifics to be certain any given US federal politician is absolute trash. They're all elected on corporate money.
Ideologically, she’s a corporate shill that incarcerated thousands of people for minor posessions and then claimed to be against such policies while never offering any amnesty or apology. Politically I have major disagreeances with both parties platforms. Socially, I think Harris leads to some Republican bullshit scheme.
Also, to everyone that keeps trying to gaslight America. EVERYONE HATES HARRIS, SHE WILL DRIVE AWAY ON THE FENCE VOTERS AND YOUNGER APATHETIC VOTERS.
She did her job and applied the law as it was, she wasn't the one who had the power to change those laws, the people chose to elect people who didn't change them.
She could have gotten a different job that didn't involve ruining lives over plants.
Prosecutors have discretion about who they charge, and what sentence they seek.
So you are eager for Trump to win, then.
sigh
I’m eager for dems to see we won’t put up with trash anymore. No more slightly better republicans, we deserve better.
The unfortunate truth is that that's not an option. We get either a Republican, or a slightly better Republican. We need to put in a lot of groundwork to open the doors for any other options, and we're just not there yet.
So, Trump then.
It’s either Trump, slightly older Trump, or Woman Trump, I’ll just write in Bernie.
The fact that you’re both-sides-ing this is enough for me to bow out. Biden and Harris are nowhere near the level of evil that Trump is. Enjoy wasting your vote. I’m out.
They’re all pieces of shit, you don’t come to lead a political party without being one. But we’ve still got to pick which is the least smelly piece of shit of the bunch.
enlight me on the reasons for this conclusion, idk much about her
Ideologically, she’s a corporate shill that incarcerated thousands of people for minor posessions and then claimed to be against such policies while never offering any amnesty or apology. Politically I have major disagreeances with both parties platforms. Socially, I think Harris leads to some Republican bullshit scheme.
Also, to everyone that keeps trying to gaslight America. EVERYONE HATES HARRIS, SHE WILL DRIVE AWAY ON THE FENCE VOTERS AND YOUNGER APATHETIC VOTERS.
Ah, so you sorta tried to answer this question. But it boils down to "because things", mainly. Or rather ONE thing exactly. I'd bet that is the sum total of your actual knowledge of Harris' history.
Like take this sentence: "Socially, I think Harris leads to some Republican bullshit scheme."
What? What does that actually mean?
Harris cannot win, Harris will not win this election. If she is the nominated candidate all it leads to is Republican bullshit and a win.
"Because reasons"
Yes, because of many reasons, with the big one being she’s incredibly umpopular and will drive people away.
Yes but WHAT REASONS SPECIFICALLY?
Y'all so far are just repeating the same thing assuming nobody will notice that "reasons" is so far only one "reason" and not a great one at that. Somebody remind me the name of this cognitive error....
I’ve said it in ither comments on this thread I thought this was part of those.
Bad polling, handling of the border, how she ran the bay area when it came to marijuana charges and cases, perceived foreign policy goals especially in relation to Israel, bad public image towards young people (pokemon go to the polls energy) and a subpar debate record. From what I remeber she was solidly losing until the fly landed on Pence and he got memed to death.
In the end she will just be women trump or women biden, I.e more of the exact same.
"perceived foreign policy goals" "how she ran the bay area" "bad public image" "subpar debate record"
So basically you don't have specifics but just gross generalizations. So far that's all anyone has come up with and it just gets repeated as though somehow saying it with more words makes it more than "because reasons". It doesn't.
How about some context and maybe even a few specifics?
Harris on Israel: She's criticized Israel and made it clear Israel's behavior would not be without consequences. Example.
"ran the bay area": Honestly this is just kind of nonsense. Did you mean her reputation around drug crimes? What about all the other stuff like the Back on Track initiative? She helped pass legislation banning the gay panic defense. And efforts to change state policies around transgender medical treatment for prisoners (this is nuanced because she argued in line with the law but didn't agree and worked to change it). Harris pushed hard agains the family separation policy under Trump, and was the first to demand Nielsen's resignation. Just a tiny random sample of achievements, which are a lot more than you might think.
"bad public image": What does this even mean given that the same could be argued for Trump and Biden? Or the "bad public image" of politicians in general? I'd argue that a lot of this "bad public image" has to do with people like you generalizing in vague ways and, to be blunt, remaining ignorant of the facts.
subpar debate record: What, like one? I know other people who flubbed debates. Obama, for example. It happens and while you could sort of argue that degrades her electability slightly you cannot argue that it points to an inability to be president.
My entire point here is that there is a LOT more to Harris than vague half-remembered generalizations that too often seem to be all people put forward. It's really worth looking at her record in more detail. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good rundown. And of course On The Issues has the usual handy summary.
I think Biden has a better chance than her, and if he's voted in she's the back up anyways.
As far as backups go, she’s far from the worst. On that note, what would America do if Biden were re-elected and simply stepped down immediately? Would America lament the second term that never was or would they simply say “oh, weird. Whatever.” Or would they celebrate fresher blood finally finding its way into the mix? I know republicans would attempt to block and/or complain about everything, but the reasonables- how would they react?
Assuming the Republicans still hold the House, they would ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS!
Sure, President Harris would still be a Democrat and control the Executive branch, but her new VP would be voted in by the House of Representatives. They'd try to put Trump in as VP. Having Trump (even as the junior in the Executive Branch) would give him access and power to spoil President Harris's agenda.
"Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress." - source is The Constitution of the United States specifically the 25th Amendment
Alternatively, again assuming Republicans keep the house, they could make Trump the Speaker of the House.
"The Constitution does not explicitly require the speaker to be an incumbent member of the House of Representatives, although every speaker thus far has been, and as a member the speaker also represents their district and retains the right to vote." source
I hate these two possible scenarios of VP or Speaker.
It's so wild to me that one of your two political parties is actively trying to dismantle your democracy and everyone continues on as if it's normal.
You seem to think the other hasn't been working towards the same goal for the past 50 years at the best of corporations, just less obvious about it. The current Dems are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. That's why all the Republicans fight about is usually social issues, they're both working towards whatever corporations want done with the money most of the time.
Dude, Biden tried to forgive like $140 billion in student loans and invested like a trillion dollars into infrastructure and energy programs with the IRA
You're not entirely wrong that the DNC is heavily influenced by wealthy corporations/donors, but c'mon man. Get a grip! You sound ridiculous with that both sides nonsense
Doing good things a few times doesn't make up for all the other neoliberal corporate bullshit you seem to want to ignore happened.
Looks like providing a carrot once in a while works well at making people forget.
Are you trying to suggest not voting for one of the only two political parties? Third party candidates can't win in the US
If you are, how old are you and how long have you been paying attention to American politics? I'm genuinely curious
I never even got close to suggesting that. I just pointed out the DNC has been steering the party in the same direction as the Republicans for the past 50 years. Shifting the entire political spectrum of the US so far to the right that we're literally looking at half of the country outright endorsing an overt a Fascist Authoritarian takeover.
They've allowed this shift while claiming that because they're socially liberal that they aren't actually helping shift us towards the situation we're in now. They don't actually do anything to change when they lose elections because they know the electoral system inevitably results in 2 parties and their corporate donors don't really care either, since both parties are in their pocket. The only real difference between the two is social policies and the occasional carrot given to "prove" they care so the citizens don't actually revolt against the party and replace them all.
Our system is fucked, but it's what we have to work within, this election options are pretty clear cut unless you're a fucking idiot. It's either maintaining at minimum the current poor status quo, or an overt Fascist Authoritarian takeover. And the DNC knows that, it's why they have pushed through whoever the fuck they want for the past several elections, regardless of what initial primaries looked like. As soon as Hilary announced her candidacy the DNC did everything in their power to ensure she was the nominee, trying to make it superficially look like the people actually had a choice while standing in the way of every other candidate. Dem leadership relies on voters falling in line because the alternative is clear Fascism, but they keep showing that they don't actually care once elected.
Don't get me wrong, there are a few Dems that seem to actually care and try to work the way the system is intended, but they never make it anywhere in the party, and when they begin to get a following, leadership gets in the way to prevent them actually accomplishing anything truly worthwhile.
The DNC is probably worse than the RNC because of it, at least the Republicans are clear about their shitty intentions and rally behind that. Instead, the Dems attack and undermine each other as if the Republicans and their fascist threat didn't exist.
I'm with you 1000% on pretty much everything except your last paragraph. But, let's slow down.
This started with someone saying, 'choosing who to vote for shouldn't be a difficult decision.' You replied saying, 'actually Dems/the DNC sucks.' Can you see how in the context of that conversation, it might seem like you're trying to respond and even refute what the previous commenter said (i.e. it actually should, or could, legitimately be a difficult decision)? Cmiiw, but I think you were just trying to hijack/insert your point into the conversation and that's totally fine! But you need to have work it in somehow or else you're just being disrespectful of them and ultimately others in the forum. Gotta have a bit of rizz, you know. Even saying something like, 'I totally agree, but tbf Biden sucks and...' or 'while I dont disagree...' would help.
Now, to address this. You say this like Rs/the RNC is honest to their voters. Trump is literally lying to them in nearly every sentence he makes. You really need to take a step back and try to see the nuance (literally always in everything).
Middle America has absolutely been shafted by both parties for decades while investments in infrastructure and whatnot have obviously been focused on cities. This makes sense, they literally don't like cities. Still, they're struggling and we, as a nation, have abandoned them. This video honestly breaks my heart. It shows how each president has made promises they either knew or should've known they couldn't keep.
Where does that leave us? Well, you might say no one really has a choice because both parties suck. I'd say, well, before the tea party, Republicans weren't so crazy. They legit took over the party that most aligned with theirs. Can you say we've done the same? If I'm honest, I won't even register as a Dem because I'm kinda with you. But surely we see how that's a bit of a problem if we want to force the DNC to take us seriously and to ultimately bend to our will.
Alright this got too long. Basically, there's lots of unhappy Americans being lied to. And some are dumber than others. One party is clearly lying more and unfortunately it's paying off bigly.
You guys need to get over this knee jerk reaction that any criticism of the "moderate" party is an existential threat that will move the needle over to the "death" party. The person you're replying to didn't say anything remotely like what you're suggesting.
Yes your republicans are materially worse when they're in power, and you should do whatever you can to keep them out (I'm no accelerationist) including voting for their opposition.
But I honestly think that yes both sides do in part contribute to this fall into fascism. Obviously I'm not saying that there are no progressive elements among the democrats, but y'all need to be able to have these conversations about what to do about the chuds in the democratic party, in addition to voting.
Did you see my last response to them? It addresses what you're saying, I think
I don't disagree with you or then. However, within the context of what's being said what are they trying to do? At best, they're hijacking the convo when it's not really relevant
(P.S. basing this on memory of the convo, didn't go back and reread everything)
I see what you're saying. Yeah we're all three on the same page, but bad actors out there trying to get people not to vote muddy the waters.
No no. House doesn't get to nominate/choose the VP. Harris would choose a VP then the House would have to vote to approve them or not, like the Senate does with SCOTUS nominees. So the worst a Repub-controlled House could do (and they would) is prevent her from filling the VP slot at all.
That's why: 1) very important Dems get the House back in this election. Biden may not hand it over immediately but it could happen at any time during the term. 2) It's probably better to make her the nominee now so she can choose a VP to run with and avoid that issue.
Realistically, if Biden were re-elected then Democrats would almost certainly win the handful of seats needed to control the House.
I think a Trump VP is inconceivable - if it came down to that Harris would likely just continuously nominate random democrats and leave the position vacant.
At which point political assassination becomes a real concern as the next in line is Mike Johnson.
Or she could use the presidential immunity and make sure that Trump can't be nominated in that position 🤷
It would take Harris to Nominate him as vice, it would instead be a deadlock of never a vice, and whatever.
I don't think he's capable of making up the difference.
She has higher potential. But she could also do worse, which doesn't really matter.
NYTimes reporting the call wasn’t anything exciting.
Yeah no shit. Harris bombed out of the 2020 run before Iowa because that's just who she is. Got 0 rizz. Biden should have talked Abrams into being VP 4 years ago.
The NYT that has a personal vendetta against Biden for reasons that Biden stans can never articulate?
It would be fucking hilarious if they pushed out Kamala for Hilary.
"We realized the reason voters want Biden to step down is because Harris is his running mate. So we replaced her with the only Democrat in existence less popular than Biden, and the only person in existence to have lost to the Toupee in an election: Hillary Clinton. It's her turn." - Dem leadership.
God that whole rhetoric pissed me off to no end, when they shoved Bernie aside because it was ‘her turn’. The level of arrogance needed to even think that, let alone push it as an argument on voters…
While I’m certainly not downplaying her actual political credits - she has experience in all levels of government - the presidency is not an ‘it’s my turn now’ position. That soured a lot of voters on her as a candidate.
‘It’s my turn’ is only an argument if you’re waiting in line at Disneyland.
Was the saying "it's her turn" always referring specifically to Hillary? I always processed "it's her turn" to just refer to a woman president in general, and giving the environment, that just happened to be Hillary. Still not MUCH better, but at least we're saying it's a collectives turn, not a single individual person.
Edit: literally just asking a simple question and posing a rhetorical in response to my memories around the event. Not trying to start anything.
It was a potential campaign slogan for her specifically. https://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-slogan-why-run-because-her-turn-2017-4
Thank you for the information. I didn't remember it being specifically tied to her, with it being 8 years ago and all hahah
A lot has certainly happened since then, if nothing else. It's not like her campaign was very smartly done on almost any level. It sucks, because the end result could have been so much better than what you got instead.
Technically, she got more votes (edit due to being unclear: than Trump, in 2016). And not by a little, nearly 3 million people more voted for her over orange anti-republic anti-democracy man. But the voting system is unrepresentative, so it didn’t matter.
Why is everyone acting as if she’s an heir or something? All delegates to the convention have already been elected. If Biden steps down, they can vote for whoever, and Dem party rules state that the superdelegates can’t jump in until the 2nd vote if no one wins the first.
I heard somewhere that all the money raised for the Biden/Harris campaign would stay with Harris if she ran for president.
I don't know if that's true, or what would happen to the money if they both drop out but I heard someone say that.
From https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-07-19/what-happens-to-bidens-campaign-money-if-he-drops-out
What Happens to Biden's Campaign Money if He Drops Out?
It depends on who the new Democratic nominee is, says Saurav Ghosh, the director of federal campaign finance reform at the Campaign Legal Center.
The simplest option from a campaign finance standpoint would be to nominate Vice President Kamala Harris, because “if Harris remains on the ticket, as either the presidential or vice-presidential candidate, the new ticket would maintain access to all the funds in the campaign committee,” says Ghosh.
This is “[b]ecause Biden and Vice President Harris share a campaign committee,” Ghosh says, as both names appear on Biden’s statement of candidacy and statement of organization to the Federal Election Commission.
However, if a new Democratic ticket did not include Biden or Harris, then things would become “more complicated,” Ghosh said.
Since $2,000 is the limit to transfer money between federal campaign committees per election cycle, Ghosh said, the Biden campaign couldn’t legally contribute all of its campaign money to a new candidate.
Instead, “Biden’s campaign would have to offer to refund the money to donors, who could then contribute to the new candidate’s campaign,” or “transfer an unlimited amount to the DNC, which could then spend the money supporting the new presidential nominee, and up to $32.3 million of that spending could be coordinated with the new nominee,” said Ghosh.
This is absolutely not true. The DNC can do whatever the fuck they want with presidential campaign money. It's a donation to a private organization. There's no contract unless a big donor insists.
That's an oversimplification. The Biden campaign has around $240 million on hand. If Harris becomes the presidential nominee, her campaign inherits the entire $240 mil.
If another person becomes the nominee, the Biden campaign could refund contributions so they can be sent to the new campaign directly. Otherwise, they are permitted to transfer as much as they want to the DNC.
But the DNC can't spend the money however they like. They can spend an unlimited amount supporting the new candidate independently (running ads, oppo research, etc), but there is a limit to how much they can spend in coordination with the campaign. For example, if they rent a venue for the candidate, that must be coordinated with the campaign and therefore counts towards coordinated expenditures. The coordinated expenditure limit per presidential cycle is $32.3 million.
And if they want to give directly to the campaign, that is even more limited. A political committee can only give $5,000 dollars per campaign per election cycle. Anything more than that would have to go to some kind of Super PAC which also has limits in what it can do in direct coordination with a campaign (though it gets fuzzier because Super PACs are tantamount to political money laundering in my opinion).
So no, if the DNC gets the money, they can't just give it to whatever campaign they like. The limitations are not due to any contractual obligation when donating the funds, but rather US political rules on how presidential campaigns are allowed to receive money.
Source: https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-07-19/what-happens-to-bidens-campaign-money-if-he-drops-out
Hmm.
That'd have to happen extremely quickly. If they don't have some kind of mechanism already in place for getting approval from the donor, it seems likely to me that they wouldn't have time to set something up.
The US typically runs fairly long campaigns, the whole election year. Not all countries work like that. IIRC, the UK does a (limited) three month campaign cycle. But even by those standards, this is really short. There are about three-and-a-half months left before the election. They haven't even selected an alternative, much less had someone spend the money to put together a campaign, much less actually embark on it.
Also, US campaigns are very large compared to most countries. I don't know what total spending is like this time around, but I remember that when Trump ran against Hillary in 2016, each spent about $1 billion in their campaign. If you have to do that, you'd have to select someone, set up and complete all the fund transfer stuff, pay someone to devise a campaign, and then implement the campaign -- and this is on the order of a billion-dollar project -- in about a hundred days.
I agree. As much as I want to see an open debate between potential candidates, narrowing it down to a single alternative and have a vote whether to switch to that person or stay with Biden... the financial side makes that idea seem unrealistic.
I think the most viable option is to have Biden step down and Harris step up. As much as Kamala Harris is not my favorite politician, I think we all understand this is not about having someone we like in the White House, it's about ensuring someone with plans to dismantle democracy does not get the chance to bring those plans to fruition.
I'm with you, but can't they just donate it to a super PAC? Isn't that basically their whole point - to launder campaign contributions?
The red tape Super PACs get around concerns how much money can be received. While a presidential campaign can only receive $3,300 from an individual, and a traditional PAC can receive up to $5,000, a Super PAC can receive unlimited donations from both individuals and corporations. That's the money laundering part - it allows the super rich to put unlimited money toward a political cause even though the system was originally designed to prevent this.
But the official name for Super PACs is "Independent-expenditure-only political committee". So, while they are allowed to receive unlimited funds, they cannot give it to a campaign or do any spending in coordination with a campaign (though how many Super PACs strictly follow the no coordination rule is hard to quantify).
Essentially, the DNC giving the money to a Super PAC would be similar to if they kept the money and did the independent political expenditures themselves. The difference being that they would lose control over what independent expenditures the money goes towards.
I wondered...
Yet, you never asked.
I just did. The way to get the correct answer on the internet is psot the wrong answer.
The best way to facilitate the spread of misinformation, THE critical war which humans are loosing at an increasingly fast rate, is to post the wrong answer on the internet. And, you got a low quality answer because it's coming also with emotion.
It's a cute meme. But, you're not serving yourself or the community as well as you could if you simply frame it as a question.
As an example here's what was missing from the higher quality answer you deserved:
In the future please just ask questions. We don't need a community for that on Lemmy... yet.
I couched my comment with the caveat that it was unsubstantiated and it then generated a lot of discussion. Your comment itself is unsubstantiated and really just makes you sound like a cob. Is money donated to a party theirs to use anyway they want? The answer appears to be kinda, maybe, but it depends.
Because these are Democrats, and no one expects them to have primaries anymore.
It's been kind of maddening, seeing the discourse about her electability go from zero to hero. US politics makes no sense outside of corporate and wealthy circles. She is way more electable than Biden.
There are, potentially valid, concerns that her being brown, a prosecutor, and a her makes her less electable than the ancient white man nobody likes. I think people for whom this is a problem were never going to vote dem anyway, but I can see what they perceive the problem is.
Some people are gonna vote D/R no matter what, some will never vote D/R. The problem at hand is not those, is taking the people that could vote D 'off their seats' and go cast that vote. Biden's not moving anyone, which could seriously result in losing the election, and I think Harris on top of not moving these could make the people that have a problem with her being a woman of color or a prosecutor go vote for Trump. The perceive problem is a real concern.
I wouldn't listen to any network or pundit that flip flops that noticeably
Where are you seeing that kind of drastic shift?
We should update our currency "enabling the worst of us". We deserve what we get at this point.
Doesn’t matter. The “far left” aren’t voting for her either.
"Far left" here, we generally understand the need to vote blue no matter who in this election. It's pretty obvious.
Then you’re not the “far left” I’m taking about. There’s a Far Left, which are legit- and the “far left” which are MAGA trolls trying to convince people not to vote.
Please. You pretend that any criticism from the left is from maga trolls.
Cool story!
True, too.
Fantastic!
Democrats to Harris:
https://youtu.be/Ao9ejWOXgHc
They both need to step aside, it's better to have an unknown than a known candidate that people don't like.
Can you show an election where that strategy has worked this late in the game?
Yea, pretty much every election up here in Canada.
I'm amazed that Americans think four months "is like literally no time".
It'd take an ad spend but the DNC could name recognition pretty much anyone at this point.
The elections are short, but we've known the candidates a long time. De Dluca was elected leader shortly before the election and no one knew who he was and he totally tanked.
*see, I even got his name wrong. Del Duca.
Doug got in to replace Patrick Brown pretty late in the game after CTV reported that Brown was a creep with young (but later turned out to be legal age) women at bars in Barrie and a snap leadership race stuck us with him. I just looked it up again and he was leader for about three months before the Provincial election, Del Duca was around for two years.
Name recognition with Doug was incredibly high. To this day, who the hell is Del Duca anyway?
Mayor of Vaughan but I get your point
You don't elect a chief executive in Canada the way we do in the U.S.
You can't compare a parliamentary election to our constitutional presidential republic's elections.
*4 weeks, bud
The convention is in 4 weeks. Mail-in-ballots get sent out at the end of September.
There's a lot of misinformation being shared due to the lack of proper context. Yes, the election is in November but it's not that simple
Honestly, if we ever think something is simple, we should pretty much assume we don't know wtf we're talking about
To my knowledge the President and vice President haven't stepped down from a political campaign. However, I can point to a situation in which a vice president took over for an unpopular president and lost. That would be Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
Additionally, just based on logic alone, it is ridiculous to insinuate that it wouldn't be better to have an unknown candidate than a disliked candidate.
How could it be better to have a candidate that voters do not like, over a candidate that they haven't come to an opinion on yet?
but they could be anyone, even worse candidate!
That would be tough, at this point in the calendar the only incumbent presidential candidates with a lower net job approval than Joe Biden were George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter. Both of whom lost the election. Trump was a few points better in 2020, he also lost.
can you show an election where somebody in the polling position of biden has come back to win it?
non-us election cycles are shorter than the time that's left i don't think it's an impossible hurdle
I don't have to show evidence for a claim I did not make.
You, however, made this claim: it’s better to have an unknown than a known candidate that people don’t like.
Can you back it up with evidence or not?
i think it's weird that you think you're allowed to infer claims from my position but that i'm not allowed to infer claims from yours
I didn't infer anything. You made a direct claim that you aren't backing up. I quoted it. I have made no claims.
you didn't quote anything?
please could you quote the exact words you believe i used to express "it’s better to have an unknown than a known candidate that people don’t like."?
thank you
that was the original statement Flying Squid was replying to before you joined in the thread, Squid just didn't seem to notice that you're not the same commenter.
Fuck off, sea lion.
i feel like i'm taking crazy pills
somebody tells me they've quoted my words, and they haven't, and i ask them to clarify, and i'm sealioning?
no, they're just full of shit
what are you talking about?
I think there may be some confusion on Flying Squid's part about who they're questioning. I believe (and hopefully, I'm reading this correctly) Flying Squid is looking for clarification from Bostonbananarama and you just happened to chime in with a related point? This Crowdstrike B.S. got e'erybody fucked up on no-change Friday.
the commenter you're replying to now isn't the one who made that claim, and for some reason they aren't speaking up to clarify that about themselves.
Maybe they flushed and went back to work. Or sleep. Or are back country camping.
😅
Sorry for having other things going on, it won't happen again.
2016
Its not, last time we did this Reagan won by a fucking landslide. I am very nervous but voting D.
In 1980, Reagan beat an unpopular incumbent, Carter, by a huge margin. In 1984, Reagan was the incumbent and crushed Walter Mondale. I'm not sure which one is the, "last time we did this" though.
If anything, Reagan shows us that unpopular incumbents do not have a high likelihood of reelection.
https://www.rawstory.com/biden-nomination/
So you didn't mean Reagan, you meant Nixon. But Nixon was the incumbent and at this point in the calendar had 58% job approval (Biden: 38.5%) and a net job approval of 26.9% (Biden: -17.7%). At this point in the calendar, Nixon was 44.6% higher in net job approval. Do you really think that's analogous?
What I mean is this is probably a bad idea. We did something similar and it was bad. But go for it. I'm voting D no matter who.
I wonder if we would get this headline if the coup failed...
Zero respect
I remember when Rolling Stone was a magazine only for music haha
So before it was a magazine? Because this is issue 1 and there's a reason there's a photo of John Lennon dressed as a soldier in an anti-war film on the front page of its inaugural issue in 1967.
Still, it was music/musician focused.
And it is now.
Here's the front page of their website.
Now it is both. You can do both.
Is Ashlee Simpson twenty or is her album twenty years old?
Let me check to see if I give a shit. I may be some time.
Okay, I’ll just hold my breath while I wait for an answer.
I'd still bang her and her goddamn insane thicc sister lol
the hell, this comment came out of left field